Many California voters perusing their voter guides are probably feeling a sense of déjà vu skimming through the long list of ballot initiatives.

Once again, Californians are being asked to approve another set of bonds, and in particular, another massive bond purporting to address the state’s water issues.

Proposition 3 certainly seems to promise a lot.

Voters are told the measure “Authorizes Bonds to Fund Projects for Water Supply and Quality, Watershed, Fish, Wildlife, Water Conveyance, and Groundwater Sustainability and Storage.”

The price tag? $8.877 billion in bonds.

But of course, bonds are not free money. They must be repaid, with interest.

With interest, Prop. 3 would ultimately cost taxpayers twice as much. According to the legislative analyst, taxpayers would be on the hook for an average of $430 million in repayments every year for 40 years.

In the context of a state like California, which has recently seen general fund state spending grow from $86 billion to $139 billion, the notion of squandering over $8 billion on interest payments for the sake of $9 billion in bond funding seems wasteful to us.

And it should to taxpayers.

The state of California has and will have the money, especially over four decades, to come up with and wisely invest in improving the state’s water infrastructure.

What that will take is some basic prioritization on the part of California’s leaders.

Notably, this water bond isn’t even a product of Sacramento like the last water bond Californians approved in June. Proposition 68, a $4 billion bond, at least went through a legislative process.

In contrast, Prop. 3 is a product of special interests, seeking to take advantage of Californians’ apparent willingness to consistently vote for water bonds.

As the Sierra Club noted, and editorial boards across the state have echoed, this measure reeks of “pay-to-play.”

Among other things, the measure calls for $750 million in assistance to finance repairs to the Friant-Kern canal in the Central Valley. The source of the damage? Overutilization of groundwater for agriculture. Taxpayers across the state shouldn’t be responsible for that.

The editorial board and opinion section staff are independent of the news-gathering side of our organization. Through our staff-written editorials, we take positions on important issues affecting our readership, from pension reform to protecting our region’s unique natural resources to transportation. The editorials are unsigned because, while written by one or more members of our staff, they represent the point of view of our news organization’s management. In order to take informed positions, we meet frequently with government, community and business leaders on important issues affecting our cities, region and state. During elections, we meet with candidates for office and the proponents and opponents of ballot initiatives and then make recommendations to voters.